Truth Magazine

By Connie W. Adams

The debate is over. Looking back over what transpired, several interesting things developed. The time of year no doubt hindered many from coming both locally and from a distance. Yet the attendance was good and the interest keen. Considerable numbers came from this area and many from over the country. Good order prevailed on the part of the audience.

More representative men could not have been selected to do the debating. For several years now Guy N. Woods has been recognized as the champion of the institutional movement among brethren. He is well known not only as a debater, but also for his part in preparing the Gospel Advocate literature. Roy E. Cogdill is known as preacher of great ability, having conducted meetings for many years throughout the country, as has Brother Woods. He is the author of “THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH” which has sold through several editions. His debating has been much more limited than Brother Woods’ efforts in that field.

The first three nights Brother Cogdill affirmed that it is “contrary to the Scriptures for churches of Christ to build and maintain benevolent organizations for the care of the needy such as Boles Home, Tipton Home, Tennessee Orphan Home, Childhaven and other orphan homes and homes for the aged that are among us.” He began by showing how scriptural authority is established. There must be a direct statement, approved example or necessary inference. In the absence of such, a practice is contrary to scripture. Brother Cogdill showed that in the work of relieving, the organization God authorized is the local church. He then showed that the benevolent organizations of the proposition were different from both the church and the home in origin, nature, form and function. These organizations are not a home; they are chartered to “provide a home.” To me, the most forceful part of Brother Cogdill’s presentation was his list of charges against the practice mentioned in the proposition, charges which were never even mentioned by Brother Woods, though he claims to answer everything, “item by item, statement by statement.” Cogdill charged that these organizations are: (1) Transgressive in that they go beyond the divine pattern in relief. The benevolent organizations are coordinate with the church and therefore additions to the word of God. ( 2 ) They are unholy, not sanctified by the blood of Christ. The New Testament was sealed by the blood of Christ, and anything practiced without New Testament authority is not cleansed by blood. (3) They are presumptive since there is no assurance that God accepts them. (4) They are irreverent in that they impeach the wisdom of God. Their existence is a tacit admission that the church as God purposed it is not adequate to fulfill its mission and human wisdom can improve upon his eternal purpose. (5) They are lawless in spirit. The word “iniquity” means without law. Since the New Testament does not authorize them, they are lawless. (6) They are sectarian in nature. While claimed as “expedients” they are made the test of fellowship to which brethren either submit or must get out. (7) They are Pharisaical in that they count themselves righteous, say “look what we are doing, what are you doing?” (8) They are unrighteous for God’s righteousness is revealed in the gospel, and these are not. (9) They are perverse in that they divert the church from its true mission and plunge it into secular business. ( 10) They are wasteful in that about 40% of funds raised goes for management and not actual care.

Brother Woods argued that the church could not be over a home, but could send money to a home. He said the organization constituted a “restored home.” He cited some passages, which concerned private duties of Christians and had no bearing on the responsibility of the church. For the most part his time was spent trying to show Cogdill inconsistent, raising sophistical questions, saying that Cogdill had changed, that the Newbern church had changed, and in appealing for the sympathy of the audience. After three nights had passed, and serious charges had been made against the scripturality of churches of Christ building and maintaining benevolent organizations for the care of the needy, we were never treated to the passage that so authorizes the practice. If anybody could do it, Brother Woods could, but in three nights he did not produce it.

The last three nights Woods affirmed the scripturality of the Herald of Truth. He started with the great commission and said that such a task required the cooperation of all congregations to realize fulfillment. He said that in New Testament times one church sent help to another for benevolence, and then reasoned from that that it could do so in evangelism. He introduced the “total situation” argument, in which he asserted that the whole is equal to the sum of its parts, that each part of his situation was scriptural, therefore his proposition stood. Cogdill showed that he had only asserted some of his fundamental essentials. He pressed him for the passage that says that one church ever sent funds to another for the purpose of evangelism. That was never produced. Woods wanted to know if one church could send a New Testament to another. Cogdill showed that for this to be parallel to the Herald-of-Truth arrangement that one church would have to receive funds from many churches in order to become a New Testament disbursing church overseeing a brotherhood work. Woods again charged that Cogdill had changed, that the Newbern church had, showed a chart with a picture of Cogdill (supposedly) driving the wedge that split the log. Cogdill showed that he had changed, was not ashamed of it, but that Woods had plainly changed and yet had never admitted it. Cogdill showed that in the work of the church, each congregation had an equal relation to the work of preaching the gospel and that the New Testament did not authorize a centralization of funds as in the Herald of Truth. He showed that each congregation consisted of members, resources, worship, work and discipline, and asked if one church could turn over part of its resources to another then why could it not delegate the oversight of some of its members, its work, worship or discipline. He showed that the Herald of Truth is separate from the Highland church, that Highland contributes to it like other churches do, that it has a separate mailing permit from the Highland church, has its own employees, offices and equipment, and issues its own financial report. According to their own published financial report for 1960, it took 56″ of every dollar contributed to grease the machinery. The debate ended without Woods ever reading the passage that authorized one eldership to become a brotherhood eldership, or that justified such a centralized agency as the Herald of Truth.

This report of the debate will not please Brother Woods. All through the debate he made remarks to the preachers present about how they would “write it up.” Let it not be denied that Brother Woods is skilled on the polemic platform. He knows debaters’s trick in the book, and used many of them in these six nights. He made assertions instead of proof. He switched terms to make play on words. He sought to load Cogdill with many questions read so hurriedly the audience could not very well follow them. He sought to draw Cogdill into side issues. He made emotional appeals to the audience. Yet, many of his partisans went off telling what a fine job he had done, when they could not tell if their lives depended on it, what passages he offered that really had any bearing at all on either proposition.

At all these discussions there are people whose minds are open and who honestly seek truth. There were some present for this debate of that mind. Already doors are opened for further study with various ones from this area. The church here is stronger as a result of it. The elders are well pleased with the work Brother Cogdill did in contending for what we believe to be the truth. There ought to be more public debates on these matters. Lies have been whispered in the darkness, unnecessary suspicions have been aroused; prejudice has clogged the minds of some. Such public discussions tend to clear the air with those who want the truth. We appeal to all who came, study your Bibles for yourselves, take no man’s word. Accept only what God said. “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God.”

Truth Magazine VI: 6, pp. 17-19
March 1962

By Bryan Vinson, Sr.

The subject of congregational cooperation; that is, cooperation between a plurality of congregations as distinguished from that between the members of one congregation, has been, and is, a very live one today among members of the Lord’s church. This interest has been provoked by the developments within recent years, and the controversy over what the scriptures teach as touching this matter. Charges have been made frequently and fiercely to the effect that some do not believe in the cooperation of congregations in the accomplishment of their mission. This is unfair because untrue. If true it would be eminently fair to so charge, but it is never fair to misrepresent the position of another. Despite the denials that have been made the charges persist, and many have been deceived thereby.

It is a curious thing to behold the uncooperative spirit and action of congregations who are so devoted to what they call congregational cooperation. Except a congregation cooperates the way they prescribe it shall be done, they, in turn, not only are very uncooperative but engage in a course of intense opposition to such a congregation. Thereby are they demonstrating themselves to be the ones who do not believe in cooperation as attested by their course of opposition to, rather than cooperation with, these congregations thus opposed. In the absence of establishing their particular type of cooperation to be the exclusively scriptural one there can be no justification for this course of the proscription of dissenting congregations. And this has not even been claimed much less established. To predicate the recognition of a congregation on the condition of meeting a humanly devised system of cooperation as between congregations is to create an ecclesiastical law of their own. The New Testament scriptures afford no directive or example of such a relation in the operation of congregations, as is currently being practiced and insisted on by the promoters among us.

That congregations did in the days of the apostles cooperate is recognized by all, but that they cooperated in the way that is being done now is the thing denied by many. To assume that such a form of cooperation is allowable does not entail the obligation nor license the treatment being accorded those who do not see fit to so function. Having “no pattern” as thus claimed by them forbids them making one which is being forced on the

churches of the Lord as essential to acceptance and recognition. May it be emphasized that only on the premise that there is a pattern, and it is the one which they are following can such action begin to be justified on their part. So, therefore, from their own position, they stand condemned by this proscriptive course.

Spiritual and Carnal Things Involved

That congregations in the first century cooperated is evident by the fact that they rendered assistance, materially, to those in a state of need. The apostle, in Romans 15:26-27, says: “For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem. It hath pleased them verily; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things.” Ordinarily in the scriptures when the term carnal is employed it is used in an unsavory sense as contrasting that which it imports with the spiritual (I Cor. 3:1-4, II Cor. 10:4, Romans 8:7). Here, however it is not so used. The contrast is there, but in no way constitutes a reflection against the things carnal. The things that are carnal here are those physical and material necessities supplied for the succor of the poor saints in Jerusalem. Please note that the Gentiles (those in Macedonia and Achaia) had been the beneficiaries in things spiritual, which had come to them from the Jews. This is true by reason of the fact that the Jews first received the gospel; the apostles were Jews, and Christ, the author of the gospel, was also a Jew. The gospel did not originate with the Gentiles. Hence, the sense of indebtedness felt by the Gentile Christians on this score, arose from the duty created by having been thus favored in receiving the gospel. They did not, then, extend this material assistance as a form of evangelism, as some are mistakenly asserting today, but for the purpose of supplying a need from a sense of duty and gratitude. Those to whom they sent it were saints, and thus not in need of being converted.

But noticing the statement that these Gentile saints had been made partakers of their (the Jews) spiritual things, we raise the question: how was this done, or what is the proper distinction in this connection between things spiritual and things carnal? Certainly the things spiritual are not things material or carnal. They are the things of the Spirit, proceeding from the Holy Spirit to the human spirit, as distinguished from that which is material or fleshly. They consist of thought, ideas and knowledge as embodying the Truth as it is in Christ. Such things are immaterial. Thus they were partakers of these spiritual things by the means and through the medium of communication of thought. They had learned the truth, and become heirs together with the Jewish Christians. Thus the contrast is between things spiritual and carnal, immaterial and material; and the partaking of the former lessens not at all the possession of such by those they proceeded from whereas the latter did involve a parting with that communicated to the recipients of the material things. With respect to the former there is no church cooperation, inasmuch as the gospel was delivered to individuals by individuals: in the latter there was.

Another passage where the terms spiritual and carnal are employed similarly is found in I Cor. 9:11. Here we read: “If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?” The context reveals that Paul is speaking of the point of being sustained or supported by them while engaged in preaching the gospel to them. He had not sought nor secured such from the Corinthians, yet he was defending his right to have been so sustained by them. Here it is a case of an individual functioning in the act described as sowing spiritual things. As a matter of fact, no church can sow spiritual things; such is always to be defined as individual action in its final analysis. Certainly, in a qualified sense, a church can, but only in the sense that it is sustaining the one, or ones, who by the devotion of their time and talents are actually accomplishing such action of communication of truth either orally or in writing.

Today we are hearing the charge repeatedly hurled that some brethren do not believe it is scriptural for one church to send a copy of the New Testament to another congregation, supply a tent for a gospel meeting, or cooperate in assisting in any respect another congregation in any endeavor designed to promote the furtherance of the gospel of Christ. Don’t they know that everything which one church can extend or give to another church is physical, material or carnal? A copy of the New Testament, a tent, a songbook or anything else that can be procured, and even the money used to secure such things are all material. There is no human need which can be met by man on this earth, either for himself or as supplied by others, that is free of a material connection or dependency. When the gospel was in “earthen vessels” and not in writing, there was a degree of separateness and independency of the spiritual from the material, which does not currently obtain. Today we have the written Word, and everyone, therefore, is dependent on it, and thus the materials employed–paper and ink–are essentially related to the communication of the truth, or things spiritual. Therefore, it is but a resort to the obviously sophistical to quibble about whether a copy of the New Testament, a tent for a gospel meeting, etc., constitutes the supplying of physical or spiritual things when provided by one church for the need, or meeting the need, of another.

Whatever the material may be needed by one congregation which it is unable to supply for itself as being legitimate in meeting its own responsibility certainly may and should be supplied by those who are able. But this isn’t the issue, and all the sophistry which ingenuity can employ will not deceive the thinking and discerning among us. The issue is – can one church assume to do the work of the churches generally, and rightfully engage in it, and become the receiving church of funds of many in order to accomplish this assumed undertaking? This we affirm is destitute of any scriptural authority, and that such arrangements and operations rest solely on human wisdom. Furthermore, it constitutes a transgression of the legitimate province of the elders of a congregation to so function (Acts 20: 28; I Pet. 5:1-4). When any congregation, or its elders, assumes the oversight of the work of a television program elsewhere and calls on churches generally to support it, there is a transcending of its proper province of functioning.

Truth Magazine VI:5, pp. 15-17
February 1962

By E. C. Koltenbah

(We are glad to give editorial space to the following review by brother E. C. Koltenbah. We are fully aware when we printed brother Holland’s article that it set forth ideas which would–and we believed should be challenged. We suggest that you turn back to the issue of November1961, and re-read brother Holland’s article, and then this review. G. J. P.)

In the Nov. 1961 issue of Truth Magazine is an article, “The Life That Now Is,” by C. R. Holland, Bremerton, Wash. This writer is well acquainted with Brother Holland and his peculiar views of eternal life and appreciates his sincere and benevolent spirit in his practiced religion, but cannot go along with him in this matter. He holds to the idea that eternal life is a present positive absolute possession of the believer and thus he takes issue with gospel preachers in their opposition to sectarians on this matter. As far as we know he is the only man among churches of Christ who has adopted this purely sectarian view. We know of numbers of brethren who gave it up when they renounced sectarian errors. Brother Holland, who is not a preacher, has sought continually to engage faithful evangelists in discussion and believes he should persuade brethren to his view. However, he has not been very successful in it and his view does not reflect the view of the Bremerton Church of Christ. Not all of the tenets of his doctrine appear in his brief article so in this review we confine ourselves simply to what he has written. He promises to write further and if he does there will be time enough to reply. The fact that he has written makes imperative this response in behalf of revealed truth, of the Bremerton Church, and of the views shared by its regular preacher and his many yoke-fellows of the cross.

The Error of the Use of “Redemption”

Brother Holland labors under the mistaken notion that the term, “redemption,” in the scriptures always refers to salvation from sin, thus in his opening argument attempts to prove that the literal body of the believer is not saved at all until the resurrection, and he misapplies both Rom. 8: 11 and 8:23 in the attempt. Actually, Paul used the term to describe the resurrection of the body from literal death, not from sin. The only way to prove the contention of the article in question is to show that “redemption” (Gr. apolutrosis) always means salvation from sin, but this is impossible. Example: “Women received their dead by a resurrection: and others were tortured, not accepting their deliverance (apolutrosis); that they might obtain a better resurrection. ” ( Heb. 11:35) Here the torture was unto death in behalf of faith in revealed truth and thus redemption (deliverance) was refused in order that the resurrection into life be obtained. If “redemption” always means from sin, then we have the ludicrous view that these faithful women suffered torture that they might not be saved from sin! Rom. 8:23 simply asserts that even the apostles themselves awaited their resurrection from the dead, not from sin. It was a strong encouragement to the saints in Rome who faced literal death. Brother Holland’s view is untenable here. It violates the hermeneutical rule that a word may have a given meaning in a particular instance, but may have a very different application in another use; and again, another rule is that the author has the right to define his own terms within the latitude of linguistic usages. A common sectarian error is to ignore these rules, thus remain in error.

Inconsistency as to “Spiritual life and Spiritual Death”

Our brother seems to labor under the delusion that “spiritual death” and death in sin are two different concepts. As far as we can observe the New Testament speaks frequently enough of death in sin, but does not use the expression, “spiritual death.” How, then, establish either identity or difference? There is no safer ground than to use Bible language to describe Bible doctrine. He says, “As spiritual life is conscious existence in relationship with God, so spiritual death is conscious existence (emphasis mine, E. C. K.) in separation from God. Thus, when the spirit (or inner man) comes into relationship with God, that is life from the dead, the spirit is redeemed, resurrected to life. It then passes from death into life. (Jn. 5:24) The body also is redeemed and resurrected to life. (Jn. 5:29, Rom. 8:23) “It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.” (1 Cor. 15:44) As seen here Brother Holland holds to the view that at baptism only the spirit of man receives “spiritual life,” the body does not; it receives “spiritual life” only at the resurrection so remains “spiritually dead.” But he says, “Spiritual death is conscious existence in separation from God.” Then immediately he does an about face setting forth the astounding view that the body remains “spiritually dead” until the resurrection! Hence, it follows that the body has conscious existence in separation from God until the resurrection! Verily, the legs of the lame are not equal. If our brother would use Bible language, to wit, “death in sin,” instead of language borrowed from sectarian commentaries, then uses that Bible language as the inspired writers use it, he would not involve himself in such an egregious blunder. Either the body of the believer is not dead in sin or “spiritual death” cannot mean “conscious existence of separation from God.” Both views can’t be right; they are in juxtaposition with each other. The fact is no man can prove by the Bible that the bodies of the faithful in Christ Jesus are dead in sins. We challenge the brother to try his hand at it. We promise a response, God willing. The texts quoted by Brother Holland do not hint of his peculiar view; his distinction is wholly synthetic, artificial and unknown to the inspired writers. The passages do set forth what is proclaimed by faithful gospel preachers whom he censures.

The Fallacy of Positive Absolute Possession of Eternal Life

In paragraph five of his article our brother cites Gen. 3:22 to assert that Adam lost eternal life when he sinned. The passage does not say that. Note it; “And Jehovah God said, behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever: therefore Jehovah God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.” (Gen 3:22-23) The text teaches plainly that Adam was driven from the garden lest he eat of the tree of life and live on earth forever in sin. This was imperative for in such an event the devil would have been proven true when he said, “Thou shalt not surely die” (Gen. 3:4), and thus God’s decree (Gen. 2: 17), proven false! Even if Adam had lived forever that is a far cry from the eternal life promised to them who obey the gospel! Brother Holland writes, “We come into possession of eternal life of the spirit when we are raised to walk a new life (note that he excludes the literal body, ECK), if we live as God would have us to; this life will never end, hence eternal. Therefore, to contend that we are still to hope for eternal life that applies to the inward man, saying we do not have (possess) it, is a serious charge against God’s word.”

First, when he introduces the conditional clause, “if we live as God would have us to,” he involves himself in an irreconcilable inconsistency with his contention that “we have eternal life now.” How can it be eternal (impossible of ending) if it is a conditional possession? This makes a farce of the Greek term “eternal” as used in the New Testament. Our brother does not know his grammar.

Second, the apostle Paul is among those guilty of this “serious charge.” “But when the kindness of God our Saviour, and his love toward man, appeared, not by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that, being justified by his grace, we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” (Ti. 3:4-7) We submit the following argument.

1. The hope of eternal life is the motive of our justification. (v. 7)

2. Our justification must be maintained for life’s duration. (Rom. 6:16, 23; Rev. 2: l0b).

3. Therefore the motive of the hope of eternal life must be maintained for life’s duration.Our brother is obligated to disprove the argument by showing the fallacy of either major or minor premise to maintain his indictment and also his position.

Third, let us examine the definition of the term, “eternal” (Gr. aionios) as used in the

New Testament. Thayer notes three; 1. “Without beginning or end, that which always has been and always will be.” God, Rom. 16:23; Spirit, Heb. 9:14. 2. “Without beginning.” Times eternal (in reference to the gospel in purpose), Rom. 16:25, 2 Tim. 1:9, Ti. 1:2, Rev. 14:6. 3. “Without end, never to cease, everlasting.” 2 Cor. 4: 17, 18 and all references to damnation in hell and life in the heaven that shall be and the like. Obviously, the first two uses are not applicable to eternal life but the third is. There is no other use in the entire New Testament so we are compelled to stay within the scope of the third usage in the matter under discussion. Hence, we submit the following arguments.

1. Eternal life as taught in the scriptures has absolutely no end.

2. We absolutely have eternal life now. (Holland)

3. Therefore the eternal life we have now can absolutely never end.To meet the argument the brother has open to him one of four alternatives, viz; 1. he must refute the major premise and thus set himself squarely against the New Testament, 2. he must refute the minor premise and thus repudiate his position; 3. he must ignore it completely and thus tacitly admit he can’t meet it; or 4. he must dodge it by drawing a distinction between the life of the believer and eternal life as he teaches it and thus meet himself coming back. We are not concerned as to which course he pursues. Baptists see the force of this argument so have invented unto themselves the doctrine of the impossibility of apostasy as a way of escape, but Brother Holland rejects this logical deduction which Baptists place upon their fallacious premise.

Again we submit this argument.

1. The life of believers on earth can end in apostasy. (Heb. 2:3, 6:4-6, 10:26-27)

2. The life that is eternal can never end. New Testament.

3. Therefore the life of believers on earth can never be eternal life.The same alternatives are open to the brother here also. His view as expressed in his article betrays the fact that he does not know the scriptures as he thinks he knows. He flagrantly ignores the common rules of hermeneutics in his verbal meanderings.

Inconsistency of Censure

Brother Holland further says, “‘I cannot understand how a good gospel preacher can, in a debate, be pressured into a position as to plainly deny Jn. 5:24 and I Jn. 5:10-13, and the only way he tries to explain these passages is by trying to array other passages against them.” I doubt seriously if he realizes the enormity of his baseless charge. He sets himself squarely against all the faithful defenders of the faith of many decades and champions the erroneous position of sectarianism in utter disregard of either the rules of grammar or of interpretation, yet inconsistently rejects the very premises upon which these same sectarians make their own contentions. Thus without the very means of scriptural censure he sets himself as counselor for the entire brotherhood of believers. Had it not been for the good name of the sound believers in Bremerton who do not go along with him this crass statement would have been left to fall on its own glaring absurdity. For the very sectarians to whom he appeals and who make such arguments upon these passages (Jn. 5:24, 1 Jn. 5:10-13), also insist that the faith mentioned in them alone saves. The brother cannot see that by swallowing the sectarian bait he is caught in the sectarian trap. He neither holds to the Bible view here nor does he know how to reconcile himself with the sectarians whose position he has espoused in regard to the possession of eternal life.

First, Jesus himself explains what is meant in Jn. 5:24 in the very same context (Jn. 5:28-29), for he says that all that are in the tombs will come forth ( to render literally) “the ones having done good things into (Gr. eis) a resurrection of life, the ones having done evil things into (Gr. eis) a resurrection of judgment ( damnation ) . ” Note the tense of the participles, Brother! Note the Greek, “eis” (into) ! Thayer says it always points forward. By whose authority do you make it to point backward? If you ignore it here why censure the sectarian when they make it point backward in Acts 2:38? You charge faithful men of arraying text against text! Why, you make Jesus to contradict himself! The gospel preachers whom you censure accept what Jesus says; the sectarians whom you follow do not, but they, consistent in their error, make “eis” have the same sense both in your attempted proof texts and in Acts 2:38. Your position puts you out on a limb by yourself. Furthermore, to attempt a dodge by assuming that “having eternal life” is one thing, and “into eternal life” is another, is to make a distinction without a difference; a mistake to hold and a mistake to assert; fair warning should be sufficient.

As to 1 Jn. 5:1 13 the apostle himself clears the matter in 1 Jn. 2:25 by identifying the “eternal life” with the promise. To say that the term, “promise,” is used by metonymy affords no comfort for the error. On the contrary it condemns it, for it must be so used to be acceptable at all; it thus establishes the futurity of the possession of eternal life! Furthermore the grammar of 1 Jn. 5:11 forbids “present positive absolute possession” of eternal life, sectarian scholars to the contrary notwithstanding. John says, “And the witness (testimony) is this (the testimony in his word), that God gave (Gr. aorist tense, past specific act; one act, completed in the past; not continuing) unto us eternal life, and this life is (Gr. present tense, continued state) in his Son. He that hath the Son hath the life (Where’ in the Son); he that hath not the Son hath not the life (Why? for it is in the Son).” (1 Jn. 5:11- 12). Paul says that it is one act that was made in God’s Son (Rom. 5:18), not countless numbers in the lives of believers. The gospel preachers also know the office of present tense, but they also know that of the aorist, nor are they deceived into sectarianism by sectarians in their misapplications of tenses. Will Brother Holland accept the same sectarian misapplication of the present tense in Matt. 12:28? If “he believes what it says” when the sectarians have done with wresting it out of context then in all consistency he is compelled to accept their view of the establishment of the kingdom before Pentecost of Acts 2! O consistency, thou art a jewel! The misuse of any number of translations cannot establish the truth of any false doctrine or practice. Moreover, the citation of a list a page long argues nothing as to whether a position be formidable; it may be the contrary.

By Leslie Diestelkamp

Visiting the sick has certainly been described as a proper quality for a follower of Christ. It is proper and right that every Christian, including the preacher, should do this good work. However, Jesus did not mean that every time some sister has a headache the preacher must go to console her. Neither did he mean that every time some brother has the ‘flu the preacher should expose himself to the disease by keeping the sick man from being lonesome all day. In fact, the modern requirement that the preacher must go by to see every person who is ill is completely out of harmony with the things taught in the New Testament. In the days of the Apostles, ministering to the sick meant rendering assistance to them. This we ought to do even today. Preachers ought to help when they are needed, not because they are preachers, but because they are Christians. But churches ought to quit expecting preachers to spend hours and hours of their time driving from house to house, going where they are usually not needed and often not wanted.

It sometimes sounds like we have hired a man to visit the sick. I have heard people say, “He was such a good preacher. He always visited all the sick.” But what did he do when he “visited” them? Was he needed there? Was he able to really serve them in their need? And what did he do when he stood up to teach God’s word? Could you tell then that he should have spent more time with his Bible and perhaps less time wandering from house to house with little more than a “cheer-up” message?

Perhaps now, after writing this, I’ll be given a new description. Some may say, “He is even against visiting the sick.” So, for emphasis and to clarify, I shall say:

1. Followers of Christ must “visit” — that is assist–the sick.

2. But churches should not hire a gospel preacher to do that work, and preachers should not allow themselves to be diverted from that more significant work of ministering to souls that are sick in sin.

3. All of us need to realize that the average “sick call” does not accomplish at all what Jesus referred to.

Truth Magazine VI: 5, p. 1
February 1962